In
Adams v. Trustees of the University of North Carolina- Wilmington, (4th Cir., April 6, 2011), a conservative Christian college faculty member alleged discrimination in the university's refusal to promote him to full professor. He expressed his views largely as a columnist and on radio and television rather than in traditional research. He was also an activist advisor to Christian student groups. The court rejected his Title VII claim, finding he had not proven religious discrimination. However it held that he may have a First Amendment claim based on the right of public employees to be free of retaliation for their speech as a citizen on matters of public concern:
Adams' speech was clearly that of a citizen speaking on a matter of public concern. Adams’ columns addressed topics such as academic freedom, civil rights, campus culture, sex, feminism, abortion, homosexuality, religion, and morality.
At issue, however, was how to interpret the Supreme Court's 2006 decision in
Garcetti v. Ceballos which held that "when a public employee makes a statement pursuant to his 'official duties,' he does not ‘speak as a citizen'." The 4th Circuit concluded:
Put simply, Adams' speech was not tied to any more specific or direct employee duty than the general concept that professors will engage in writing, public appearances, and service within their respective fields. For all the reasons discussed above, that thin thread is insufficient to render Adams’ speech "pursuant to [his] official duties" as intended by Garcetti.
The court remanded the case to the district court for it to determine whether the other elements of a First Amendment claim were present-- whether the employee's interest in speaking on the matter of public concern outweighed the government’s interest in providing effective and efficient services to the public, and whether the employee's speech was a substantial factor in the adverse employment decision.
AP reports on the decision.
